AGM Voting rights allocation

[Jac]

...A simple scenario that can be protected against by having maximum voting rights - mmm, where have I heard that before?

Let's try and have a civilised debate for a change.

Are you saying there should be no cap on any voting rights? That someone with 1,000 domains should have 1,000 votes and someone with 10,000 or more should have the equal number of votes?

The question that is usually asked then is exactly what I was asking (except badly it seems); does this mean that only those rich in domain names have the power to change things? And if so, how does that equate to every registrant having a voice?

Ideally every registrant would have an equal voice, but many people (including domainers) want to have more voice than those with just one or two domains. So where is the middle ground that would effectively allow all registrants to have a voice, and more importantly, to be heard?

That is my question, that is my quest. Please do not go off on a mind reading exercise; I would seriously like to hear some community oriented suggestions.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

Who are all the stakeholders?

Rank them in decreasing order of importance.

-aqls-

 

[olebean]

Who are all the stakeholders?

Rank them in decreasing order of importance.

-aqls-

Aqls

only one matters

Governments!


OB

 

[Jac]

Who are all the stakeholders?

Rank them in decreasing order of importance.

-aqls-

As it happens, Nominet is probably very much in agreement with the UN's Internet Governance Forum's idea on that. The IGF regards stakeholders as an inclusive thing encompassing government, industry, and civil society.

You have asked me to rank them in decreasing order of importance and personally I cannot do that because I believe all people are equally important. However, I think the way the IGF has done it is fairly logical in that Goverments govern all other sectors and industry provides employment to civil society and civil society encompasses everyone else regardless of race, religion, persuasion or politics.

That's probably not what you were after, but to be blunt, I don't know how one ranks the importance of people (especially if one is a Humanitarian).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Aqls

only one matters

Governments!


OB

Only in that Goverments are elected by the people to govern.
(At least, in a democracy.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

personally I cannot do that

Try harder.

-aqls-

 

[Beasty]

James

I don't doubt what you say. I take and endorse your point about that aspect of the election statements. What I'm saying is that candidates behaviour is at least understandable. They need not address the issue of the wider stakeholder community - in particular non-member registrants - since they have no votes, no power and no direct influence.

By that, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't suggest that there is not a genuine interest in their views at least from people like yourself and Hazel; and indeed executives at Nominet that I've met.

However, the fact of the matter is that they have no votes; and by some perverse twist of logic the financial input of unrepresented registrants results in large ISPs getting a disproportionate amount of political muscle within Nominet.

Anyway, I doubt it will ever change voluntarily...

 

[Beasty]

As it happens, Nominet is probably very much in agreement with the UN's Internet Governance Forum's idea on that. The IGF regards stakeholders as an inclusive thing encompassing government, industry, and civil society.

You have asked me to rank them in decreasing order of importance and personally I cannot do that because I believe all people are equally important. However, I think the way the IGF has done it is fairly logical in that Goverments govern all other sectors and industry provides employment to civil society and civil society encompasses everyone else regardless of race, religion, persuasion or politics.

That's probably not what you were after, but to be blunt, I don't know how one ranks the importance of people (especially if one is a Humanitarian).

Regards
James Conaghan

That's a fair breakdown. However if I were playing devils advocate - :twisted: - I'd say that within Nominet's structure they are ranked.

Government has appointees on the PAB and is consulted/lobbied contantly by Nominet.

Industry pays membership and has its weighted voting.

Civil society has to rely on the goodwill of the other two to consider its interests - although (as in most things) it is the one picking up the tab.

 

[sneezycheese]

Let's try and have a civilised debate for a change.

Are you saying there should be no cap on any voting rights? That someone with 1,000 domains should have 1,000 votes and someone with 10,000 or more should have the equal number of votes?

The question that is usually asked then is exactly what I was asking (except badly it seems); does this mean that only those rich in domain names have the power to change things? And if so, how does that equate to every registrant having a voice?

Ideally every registrant would have an equal voice, but many people (including domainers) want to have more voice than those with just one or two domains. So where is the middle ground that would effectively allow all registrants to have a voice, and more importantly, to be heard?

That is my question, that is my quest. Please do not go off on a mind reading exercise; I would seriously like to hear some community oriented suggestions.

Regards
James Conaghan

...The key is to KISS.

If you think too big then you get yourself lost and you end up nowhere.

Starting point:

1. Allocate an additional and equal number of shares for registrants (call them 'B' shares if you like). So you'll end up with a 50/50 split.

2. Allocate these addtional shares to registrants on a pro-rata basis and at the same ratio it is done for current members.

3. Keep the rules the same for both types of shares, including voting rights.

Result:

a) Inclusion of Nominet largest and most important stakeholder group (remember keeping it simple or you'll end up getting nowhere).

b) Increased cost - but just look what you've added to the party.

c) Balanced control over the company.


Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Jac]

Try harder.

-aqls-

How hard does one have to try before you think they've tried hard enough?

Define try harder and I'll see if I can accommodate you.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

IMO, government shouldn't be voting at all, any more than it should vote on the board of .uk.com domain company or any other non-monopoly organisation. It also runs it's own .gov so isn't reliant on good management of nominet directly for it's own needs.

(assuming we all agree .uk isn't run as a monopoly )

The relevant stakeholders are:
in order of income coming directly into the company:
registrars
registrants
members

or in order of income coming indirectly into the company (looking a bit closer at the income source):
registrants
members
registrars

or in order of reliance on the domain name system dns to function securely:
large ecommerce providers
small ecommerce providers
sensitive information providers
. . .
non commercial providers

or in order of pounds spent
large number of domain holders
members
small holders

etc

Just some thought points.

My opinions shouldn't count at this stage!

-aqls-

 

[aqls]

How hard does one have to try before you think they've tried hard enough?

Define try harder and I'll see if I can accommodate you.

Regards
James Conaghan

please stop red herringing.

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

James

I don't doubt what you say. I take and endorse your point about that aspect of the election statements. What I'm saying is that candidates behaviour is at least understandable. They need not address the issue of the wider "stakeholder community - in particular non-member registrants - since they have no votes, no power and no direct influence.

By that, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't suggest that there is not a genuine interest in their views at least from people like yourself and Hazel; and indeed executives at Nominet that I've met.

However, the fact of the matter is that they have no votes; and by some perverse twist of logic the financial input of unrepresented registrants results in large ISPs getting a disproportionate amount of political muscle within Nominet.

The status quote in my opinion, is linked to the wording of the Articles of Association.

"The Steering Committee shall be made up of the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association; the members of the Council of Management; and Internet service providers, connectivity resellers, web suppliers and other individuals or organisations with an interest in the operation of the .UK domain, who or which apply for admission, are admitted as members by the Council of Management, and pay a subscription.

Every application for membership shall be in one of the forms set out in Article 54 or in such other form as the Council of Management shall prescribe from time to time."

I would suggest that until the Membership allows Nominet to change its Mems & Arts that the membership has to stay as it is, if only to accommodate legal propriety. Please correct me if you think this is an incorrect understanding of company law on my part.

Anyway, I doubt it will ever change voluntarily...

I think it has to change. The internet has moved on dramatically since 1996 yet Nominet is stuck in the same position and can't actually move forward (or even sideways) because of its own restrictive constitution.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

The status quote in my opinion, is linked to the wording of the Articles of Association.

"The Steering Committee shall be made up of the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association; the members of the Council of Management; and Internet service providers, connectivity resellers, web suppliers and other individuals or organisations with an interest in the operation of the .UK domain, who or which apply for admission, are admitted as members by the Council of Management, and pay a subscription.

Every application for membership shall be in one of the forms set out in Article 54 or in such other form as the Council of Management shall prescribe from time to time."

I would suggest that until the Membership allows Nominet to change its Mems & Arts that the membership has to stay as it is, if only to accommodate legal propriety. Please correct me if you think this is an incorrect understanding of company law on my part.



I think it has to change. The internet has moved on dramatically since 1996 yet Nominet is stuck in the same position and can't actually move forward (or even sideways) because of its own restrictive constitution.

I am not sure what the Steering Committee is (the PAB?) - but on the face of that Nominet can let in any individual with an interest in .uk who applies. Send out an application form (or better still email it) when someone registers a domain - and they can join. If they have a .uk domain then they must be interested in .uk as a whole - and if they are interested enough they will fill in the form. So I don't see anything that needs changing for that reason - just a change of practice.

The membership fee could be rolled into the registration fee - and for the avoidance of doubt that would not need an increase - since there is an annual surplus of £3 million per annum and rising that could be used.

 

[Jac]

please stop red herringing.

-aqls-

Why do you assume an attempt to clarify what you mean is me "red herringing"? Why not take it as it is; an attempt to clarify what you mean.

Anyway, thanks for explaining how you see stakeholders in order of importance. I would have thought that the fact you have shown differing orders of preference should highlight that defining stakeholders in order of importance is not as easy as it first appears.

The only part I would disagree with you on, is your comment that government should have no vote; although in actuality, they don't anyway. Representatives of the DTI and Cabinet Office may abstain from votes (at the PAB table) because they may be in conflict with their own crown servant employee status. Civil Servants have their own code of conduct which could (conceivably) at times, put them in conflict too.

So it is not a simple matter to say a stakeholder is this or that. What I can tell you is that I believe it is all of us; but even then, some people argue it can't be all of us because some of us become unequal through our own endeavours. Spookily enough, this is an argument put forward by some of the candidates standing in the current board elections. It is more easy therefore to define what a stakeholder isn't; and it isn't just a selective part of the whole.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[aqls]

The membership fee could be rolled into the registration fee

Not in my opinion.

Can be a tiny charge but not one that pressures reg fee.

reg fees should go down if the surplus is too big, not try to fill the fee with extras.

-aqls-

 

[aqls]

shown differing orders of preference

I am trying to help establish the grounds for the ensuing discussion.

i.e. suggesting several bases on which ranking might be considered.

Any more?

-aqls-

 

[Jac]

I am not sure what the Steering Committee is (the PAB?)

No, it is not the PAB per se. I quote; "The Steering Committee shall be made up of the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association; etc" being anyone who pays their membership dues after applying for membership. The PAB was created in 1999 as a communications channel because the steering committee (members) was starting to number in the thousands.

- but on the face of that Nominet can let in any individual with an interest in .uk who applies.

Yes, if they pay the prevailing membership fees.

Send out an application form (or better still email it) when someone registers a domain - and they can join. If they have a .uk domain then they must be interested in .uk as a whole

I have to suggest that is a very simplistic observation. Most .uk registrants do not seem to be interested in the day to day operations of the registry. For instance, at Nominet Lunches, the feedback from members is that they don't want to be involved either as long as .uk keeps running. NB: this is not my opinion, it is feedback given at Member lunches. Nominet sees hundreds of members each year at these events and the majority do not seem that interested in governance issues. I wish we could make them interested but years of experience on nom-steer and talking to members seems to indicate that only 9 to 10% of the total membership wants to take the proactive interest Acorn Domains does (for instance).

- and if they are interested enough they will fill in the form. So I don't see anything that needs changing for that reason - just a change of practice.

The membership fee could be rolled into the registration fee - and for the avoidance of doubt that would not need an increase - since there is an annual surplus of £3 million per annum and rising that could be used.

Before we can do this, I would suspect the membership would have to agree to a lowering of the membership fees. Some of them may feel it would be unfair given that they had to stump up the 400 quid plus vat plus 1st year's dues. Some of them might think it's okay... though I suspect the bigger vote holders wouldn't be too keen. So we're back to a change of Mems & Arts to allow the kind of option you have detailed above. (Allowing that my understanding of company law is correct.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

Appreciate the info about steering committee and PAB - so if I've got it right steering committee = membership?

I agree with you James that it almost certainly won't happen. I was just pointing out that it could happen within the current framework.

 

[aqls]

At the moment if I reg with 123 then my 'vote' as a buyer of a domain defaults to Pipex - owner of 123.

Perhaps what is missing is - when someone buys a domain they can specify which PAB member they wish to represent their views and it doesn't default to their registrar.

-aqls-